EU European
Parliament calls on Council to prevent Europol negotiating new
international agreements23.11.2013A European Parliament vote on
Wednesday showed overwhelming support for a resolution calling
on the Council of the European Union not to authorise the opening
of negotiations on new cooperation agreements between Europol
and Brazil, Georgia, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The resolution, drafted
by the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) Committee,
"calls on the Council not to adopt" a draft Decision
that would give Europol's Director authorisation to open negotiations
with the four countries. [1]

The resolution says that
"Parliament's Legal Service considered the proposed procedure
as legally not correct" because negotiations on a new legal
basis for Europol are currently underway.

679 MEPs voted in favour
of the resolution, making up 98% of those present. 11 voted against
and there were four abstentions. [2]

Under the proposed new
Europol Regulation, "the provisions and the procedure for
concluding agreements with third states and organisations are
to be modified; therefore there should not be any amendments
to the [current list]," says the resolution.

It also cites "concerns
about the current level of data protection in some of the countries
listed in the proposal".

Europol is able to conclude
different types of agreement with non-EU states and international
organisations: strategic agreements permit the exchange of strategic
and general information, while operational agreements also allow
the exchange of personal data, intelligence and analysis. [3]

Agreements - in particular
operational agreements - with non-EU states and international
organisations such as Interpol allow Europol to bolster its expanding
databases and enhance its data-processing and analysis abilities.

The draft Council Decision
to which the Parliament is overwhelmingly opposed would amend
the list of countries with which Europol is to conclude agreements,
and this would allow the opening of negotiations with Brazil,
Georgia, Mexico and the UAE. The Commission has also argued against
the amendment of the list. [4]

Europol considers them
"priority countries" and is seeking cooperation agreements
for a variety of reasons, with the overarching aim of fulfilling
its objective of "maximis[ing] operational added value from
all our cooperation agreements with external partners".
[5]

In March and April this
year Statewatch published a series of articles covering Europol's
"business cases" for opening negotiations with the
four countries. [6]

Lawyers and human rights
activists in Georgia raised concerns over the legislative framework
governing information-gathering by the country's police; in Mexico
police and security forces have frequently been accused of involvement
in torture; and Europol's proposal to reach an agreement with
the UAE takes no account of the European Parliament's call for
the EU to "take concrete actions" to address the human
rights situation in the UAE.

Despite clear cross-party
support in the European Parliament for Europol to be prevented
from opening negotiations, the Member States' representatives
in the Council may well proceed regardless - while it is obliged
to "consult" Parliament on the issue, it is not bound
by the wishes of MEPs.

This may be why Europol's
recently-published 2014 Work Programme appears to see the new
agreements as a foregone conclusion. It contains the objective:
"Conclude cooperation agreements with remaining Balkan countries
and progress with negotiations with new countries on the Council
list", noting that cooperation will be established "according
to MS [Member State] needs and EU requirements". [7]

Within the Council, EU
Member States have also been busy discussing the implications
of the proposed new Europol Regulation for agreements between
the agency and non-EU countries and international organisations.

The Lithuanian Presidency
submitted a discussion paper to the Article 36 Committee (CATS)
containing the following questions:

What are the operational
needs for cooperation between Europol and third countries?

What kind of control
should the Council (or the Commission) have in this regard? (e.g.
approval of the list of third countries)

Do delegations consider
that the procedure envisaged under Article 218 for concluding
international agreements would affect the possibilities for operational
activities of Europol in relation to third countries?

The Presidency's discussion
paper notes that in early September, Member State delegations
in the Law Enforcement Working Party expressed concerns over:

"[W]hether the
proposed Regulation would allow for the same level of Europol's
cooperation with third countries as foreseen in its current cooperation
agreements as well as regarding the degree of involvement of
Member States in deciding on the need for cooperation with a
certain third country." [8]

&COPY; Statewatch ISSN
1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals/"fair dealing"
is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage
by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation
holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights
organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with
such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that
licence and to local copyright law.